求点评啊。。。。。

哈哈大雄UID: 2776597

TOPIC: ARGUMENT169 - The following appearedin a letter from a department chairperson to the president of PierceUniversity.

"Some studies conducted by BronstonCollege, which is also located in a small town, reveal that both male andfemale professors are happier living in small towns when their spouses are alsoemployed in the same geographic area. Therefore, in the interest of attractingthe most gifted teachers and researchers to our faculty and improving themorale of our entire staff, we at Pierce University should offer employment tothe spouse of each new faculty member we hire. Although we cannot expect alloffers to be accepted or to be viewed as an ideal job offer, the money investedin this effort will clearly be well spent because, if their spouses have achance of employment, new professors will be more likely to accept ouroffers."
WORDS: 438
TIME: 00:40:00
DATE: 2010/3/7 22:47:50

The president of the PierceUniversity (PU) claims that PU should offer employment to the spouse of eachnew faculty member they hire to attract the most gifted teachers andresearchers to their faculty and improve the morale of their entire staff. Inorder to make the argument convincing, the president cites the studies whichshow that the professors are happier living in the small towns where itscollege has put this policy into effect. The argument seems very specific andwell reasoned at first glance. A careful scrutiny of it, would reveal howgroundless it is.
First of all, the president arbitrarily assumesthat the phenomenon that professors are happier living in BC (Bronston college)is attributable to the fact that the spouses are living together. Admittedly,the policy may play a role in this progress. However, this is not necessarilythe case. Many other factors can also lead to the satisfaction. For instance, maybethe environment in the small town is suitable for people living there, perhapsthe professors are paid with high salary by the college or there are perfectresearching groups with which they are content. The president explain theresult contribute by many possible cases with just one reason which cannotguarantee the result. So without ruling out this possibility, the president cannot make a reliable conclusion.
The second problem involves the argument that thepresident makes a false analogy. He falsely assumes that the likewiseeffectiveness, granted that it is the policy instead of other factors that isresponsible for the result in BC, will once again emerge in PC. However, hegives no evidence to support his assumption. Very likely, the president overlookssome disparities between the colleges. It is entirely possible that theprofessors will not be interested in PC' policy since it is not as famousaround the nation as BC. After all, different colleges have different situationand different advantages, thus, the president cannot hope to achieve the samegoal with BC simply by taking the same policy.
Thirdly, even assuming the policy will also beeffective in PC, there is no evidence to show that the most gifted teachers andresearchers will be attracted by this new policy. As a common sense, professorstend to take many things into consideration when they choose a college, such asthe fame of the college, the research atmosphere and equipment, how much theyare paid there, and even the convenience of the local transportation. Thepresident hopes a gifted professor gives up his job in a celebrated college,where he is well treated and likely to achieve a successful career merely becauseof the policy of PC. It is something ridiculous, isn’t it?

In sum, the argument is undermined by severallogical flaws, which rendering it unconvincing. To bolster the argument, thepresident must provide us with information of the conducting of the policy inPC. Moreover, we should also know the difference between PC and BC to judge ifthe policy applies to PC. And it will be better evaluated if the president canclearly state the advantages of PC to appeal to the most gifted teachers andresearchers besides this new policy.